Credit card company refunded under s75, now the retailer is wanting me to pay them back

glennevis

The shop suggested you buy new wooden feet so I think they should reimburse you for them.
If you are not a DIYer, pay a joiner to fit wooden feet and invoice you. Pay the joiner's invoice and get the joiner to stamp it 'paid'.
Then send the shop a cheque for the original cost, deducting the cost of the joiner's invoice. Explain in the covering letter why you have deducted the cost of fitting replacement feet.

viksviks84

glennevis said:

The shop suggested you buy new wooden feet so I think they should reimburse you for them.
If you are not a DIYer, pay a joiner to fit wooden feet and invoice you. Pay the joiner's invoice and get the joiner to stamp it 'paid'.
Then send the shop a cheque for the original cost, deducting the cost of the joiner's invoice. Explain in the covering letter why you have deducted the cost of fitting replacement feet.

Thank you, this is a very good idea. These are the chunks of missing wood, do you think I should live with this, considering it is the underneath and won't be visible?  Surely this shouldn't happen after 3 months. 

TELLIT01

The base seems to be made from poor quality chipboard so whatever you screw into it is likely to break away again.  I don't think any repairs should become the responsibility of the purchaser.  The goods are faulty, the card provider agreed and refunded.  It should be the responsibility of the retailer to collect the item.  Depending on where the OP lives in relation to the retailer it might be worth just getting a man with a van and returning it themselves.

sheramber

viksviks84 said:

Hi All, 

Thank you for your responses. 

I paid on a credit card, so I thought it was a S75? I thought chargebacks were using a debit card, but maybe someone can confirm?

Credit card can be chargeback or S75.

Debit card is chargeback only.

ThumbRemote

glennevis said:

The shop suggested you buy new wooden feet so I think they should reimburse you for them.
If you are not a DIYer, pay a joiner to fit wooden feet and invoice you. Pay the joiner's invoice and get the joiner to stamp it 'paid'.
Then send the shop a cheque for the original cost, deducting the cost of the joiner's invoice. Explain in the covering letter why you have deducted the cost of fitting replacement feet.

This is an absolutely terrible idea, and would massively muddy the waters. The sofa is faulty, and terrible quality, do not under any circumstances go back on the progress you've already made and pay for it again! That would be an utterly ridiculous thing to do. You'd end up with no support from the shop OR the card company next time anything goes wrong with it. 

Simply contact the retailer and tell them you have not stolen the sofa, instead it is available for them to collect. Provide contact details so they can arrange a time. 

If they contact you and collect it, job done, everything sorted. 
If they don't contact you, leave it a month or so then proactively write to them to remind them that it is available for them to collect. This just demonstrates you've tried to sort it out with them. 

Or, as TELLIT01 says above, use a van and drop it off at the shop. A bit more effort, but you know it's done and the matter is closed. 

user1977

Admit to the terrible crime of stealing the knackered sofa, and ask the shop to get the police to collect the evidence. 

Manxman_in_exile

TELLIT01 said:

The base seems to be made from poor quality chipboard so whatever you screw into it is likely to break away again.  I don't think any repairs should become the responsibility of the purchaser.  The goods are faulty, the card provider agreed and refunded.  It should be the responsibility of the retailer to collect the item.  Depending on where the OP lives in relation to the retailer it might be worth just getting a man with a van and returning it themselves.

sheramber said:

viksviks84 said:

Hi All, 

Thank you for your responses. 

I paid on a credit card, so I thought it was a S75? I thought chargebacks were using a debit card, but maybe someone can confirm?

Credit card can be chargeback or S75.

Debit card is chargeback only.

I think that if the OP made it clear to his bank/cc provider that he was making a s75 claim against the retailer (not a chargeback) and the bank did not do so, then he should be making a formal complaint to the bank.  The whole point of s75 is to give the consumer statutory protection and to make the finance provider jointly and severally liable with the retailer.  The bank/cc provider cannot be allowed to pick and choose a remedy which affords the consumer a lower level of protection (ie allowing the retailer to threaten to sue the consumer to get their money back after the bank has charged them back) than statute does.  The bank isn't allowed to limit or restrict statutory consumer rights, and if I were the OP I'd be complaining immediately on these grounds.

If the sofa was delivered by the shop to the OP, then the OP simply needs to let them know again that it is available for the shop to collect.   If the OP picked it up from the shop itself, he needs to return it to them. (I certainly would not hire a man in a van to do so if the shop had delivered it -  the OP simply makes it available for collection than it's up to the shop).

In the highly unlikely event that the OP is sued by the shop, then the OP simply defends the claim on the grounds that the sofa was faulty and that after being refunded by their bank they have made every attempt to get the shop to collect the defective goods but they have failed to do so.  I don't see how he can lose - but if he does lose I would be making a formal complaint to the bank and to the FOS.  If the sofa is faulty but the OP loses on some other ground, he should make a s75 claim against the bank!

If the sofa is faulty all this talk about the OP getting replacement feet or legs of eBay and fitting them himself is defeatist nonsense and utterly useless advice.

(NB - all the above assumes the sofa is sufficiently faulty to warrant rejection / a s75 claim - whether it is or not, I don't know).

prowla

viksviks84 said:

prowla said:

Did you tell the retailer to come and collect the faulty items?

The relationship between the retailer and their supplier is nothing to do with you.

I asked them to come and colllect, but they refused saying I could 'buy new legs', this was when they said that their supplier wouldn't take the item back or refund them. I asked if they would supply new legs for me or offer a partial refund so I should buy replacements and they refused.

This was why I went down the route of contacting the credit card company. 

It's not your duty to repair the faulty item they sold you.

You've rejected it as unfit and it's their job to arrange the return.

ItsComingRome

Manxman_in_exile said:

TELLIT01 said:

The base seems to be made from poor quality chipboard so whatever you screw into it is likely to break away again.  I don't think any repairs should become the responsibility of the purchaser.  The goods are faulty, the card provider agreed and refunded.  It should be the responsibility of the retailer to collect the item.  Depending on where the OP lives in relation to the retailer it might be worth just getting a man with a van and returning it themselves.

sheramber said:

viksviks84 said:

Hi All, 

Thank you for your responses. 

I paid on a credit card, so I thought it was a S75? I thought chargebacks were using a debit card, but maybe someone can confirm?

Credit card can be chargeback or S75.

Debit card is chargeback only.

I think that if the OP made it clear to his bank/cc provider that he was making a s75 claim against the retailer (not a chargeback) and the bank did not do so, then he should be making a formal complaint to the bank.  The whole point of s75 is to give the consumer statutory protection and to make the finance provider jointly and severally liable with the retailer.  The bank/cc provider cannot be allowed to pick and choose a remedy which affords the consumer a lower level of protection (ie allowing the retailer to threaten to sue the consumer to get their money back after the bank has charged them back) than statute does.  The bank isn't allowed to limit or restrict statutory consumer rights, and if I were the OP I'd be complaining immediately on these grounds.

If the sofa was delivered by the shop to the OP, then the OP simply needs to let them know again that it is available for the shop to collect.   If the OP picked it up from the shop itself, he needs to return it to them. (I certainly would not hire a man in a van to do so if the shop had delivered it -  the OP simply makes it available for collection than it's up to the shop).

In the highly unlikely event that the OP is sued by the shop, then the OP simply defends the claim on the grounds that the sofa was faulty and that after being refunded by their bank they have made every attempt to get the shop to collect the defective goods but they have failed to do so.  I don't see how he can lose - but if he does lose I would be making a formal complaint to the bank and to the FOS.  If the sofa is faulty but the OP loses on some other ground, he should make a s75 claim against the bank!

If the sofa is faulty all this talk about the OP getting replacement feet or legs of eBay and fitting them himself is defeatist nonsense and utterly useless advice.

(NB - all the above assumes the sofa is sufficiently faulty to warrant rejection / a s75 claim - whether it is or not, I don't know).

There is no point in pursuing the bank. The OP got their money back, which is what they wanted.  They can't insist on an S75 if the situation has been remedied under the chargeback scheme.

Manxman_in_exile

ItsComingRome said:

Manxman_in_exile said:

TELLIT01 said:

The base seems to be made from poor quality chipboard so whatever you screw into it is likely to break away again.  I don't think any repairs should become the responsibility of the purchaser.  The goods are faulty, the card provider agreed and refunded.  It should be the responsibility of the retailer to collect the item.  Depending on where the OP lives in relation to the retailer it might be worth just getting a man with a van and returning it themselves.

sheramber said:

viksviks84 said:

Hi All, 

Thank you for your responses. 

I paid on a credit card, so I thought it was a S75? I thought chargebacks were using a debit card, but maybe someone can confirm?

Credit card can be chargeback or S75.

Debit card is chargeback only.

I think that if the OP made it clear to his bank/cc provider that he was making a s75 claim against the retailer (not a chargeback) and the bank did not do so, then he should be making a formal complaint to the bank.  The whole point of s75 is to give the consumer statutory protection and to make the finance provider jointly and severally liable with the retailer.  The bank/cc provider cannot be allowed to pick and choose a remedy which affords the consumer a lower level of protection (ie allowing the retailer to threaten to sue the consumer to get their money back after the bank has charged them back) than statute does.  The bank isn't allowed to limit or restrict statutory consumer rights, and if I were the OP I'd be complaining immediately on these grounds.

If the sofa was delivered by the shop to the OP, then the OP simply needs to let them know again that it is available for the shop to collect.   If the OP picked it up from the shop itself, he needs to return it to them. (I certainly would not hire a man in a van to do so if the shop had delivered it -  the OP simply makes it available for collection than it's up to the shop).

In the highly unlikely event that the OP is sued by the shop, then the OP simply defends the claim on the grounds that the sofa was faulty and that after being refunded by their bank they have made every attempt to get the shop to collect the defective goods but they have failed to do so.  I don't see how he can lose - but if he does lose I would be making a formal complaint to the bank and to the FOS.  If the sofa is faulty but the OP loses on some other ground, he should make a s75 claim against the bank!

If the sofa is faulty all this talk about the OP getting replacement feet or legs of eBay and fitting them himself is defeatist nonsense and utterly useless advice.

(NB - all the above assumes the sofa is sufficiently faulty to warrant rejection / a s75 claim - whether it is or not, I don't know).

There is no point in pursuing the bank. The OP got their money back, which is what they wanted.  They can't insist on an S75 if the situation has been remedied under the chargeback scheme.

Why not? 

The OP did not get what they want because the retailer is threatening to sue them.  (Whether or not the retailer actually has a case is irrelevant to my point -  his bank should not have put the OP in this position).

s75 is a statutory consumer right whereas a chargeback is, as I understand it, some kind of voluntary inter-bank agreement which is dependent on the terms of that agreement, and is not a legal "right" for the consumer.  Indeed a chargeback - as in this situation - gives the consumer a lower level of protection because it is always open to the retailer to sue the consumer after being charged back.  (Indeed I'm pretty sure you've made that point yourself in another thread - although it may have been somebody else like y3sitsm3 or p3ncilsharp3n3er).  The consumer won't be sued after a s75 claim because they've already won the claim.

I further understand that banks very much have a financial interest in pursuing a chargeback rather than a s75 claim. With a chargeback they are refunding money from the retailer and not from their own funds (this has been explained here by someone who appears to have inside knowledge of how it works) but unlike a s75 claim, a chargeback leaves the consumer open to further action from the retailer.

The bank is clearly and blatantly evading the intent Paliament had in passing s75 of the CCA (indeed I'd go further and say that by ignoring a clear request for a s75 claim and instead processing a non-stautory chargeback, they are clearly breaking the letter of the law) and I'd suggest they can't lawfully do that.  I suspect banks thought up chargeback as a "clever" wheeze for evading their responsibilities under the law and passing costs back to the retailer while dressing it up as them being kind and generous to their customers.  And of course they advertise it as such but fail to mention that chargeback does not offer the same level of protection to their customers as they already have under statute.

Presumably you would disagree?

[EDIT:  I'm assuming the OP clearly requested a s75 claim - they haven't confirmed if they did or not]